4 ms·

Yes, surely, legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades is better than maintaining at least a s

Yes, surely, legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades is better than maintaining at least a semblance of the rule of law. The latter is hard and expensive! Not to go all Godwin up in here, but appeasing violent ambition hasn't worked well in the past and it wont work here. The rare cases where it has worked have been political in nature, driven by groups with legitimate grievances, not an abundance of greed.

int_19h 10y ago
If the semblance of the rule of law is really mostly semblance, it may actually well be better here and now. I lived in a country which, at a certain time period, had such a deterioration in the quality of law enforcement (corruption, lack of funds, high crime rates etc), that the local mob effectively did run the show. And while it was messy, they did actually establish some rule of law - except it was, of course, their law. But it was something businesses were willing to go along with, because some law is usually better than none; and if paying, say, 10% on a regular basis means you can generally do business normally otherwise (and your contracts are enforced if needed etc), that's not the worst place to be in. If you think about it, governments essentially evolved out of such bands of armed people providing "protection" to the populace (which really just means that no-one else is going to rob them). So when a government becomes so inefficient and/or corrupt that it cannot effectively provide protection anymore, well, the next challenger is going to take over - and, if successful, eventually become the new government. Somewhere down the line, people start asking questions like "why are we paying these guys", and you get all kind of fancy philosophical theories like social contract and natural rights, and the role and mechanics of government evolves accordingly... but it still has to be able to provide this one basic function: ensure that no-one else collects the money from its citizens, and no-one else can rough them up.
douche 10y ago
> legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades This is essentially the history of statebuilding, from Sargon of Akkad to today. There is not a great deal of distinction to be made between a Gothic warchief, a Norman knight, a Spanish conquistador, or a Mexican cartel head.
kingkawn 10y ago
That's how we got our current governments and economic model.

int_19h 10y ago

If the semblance of the rule of law is really mostly semblance, it may actually well be better here and now. I lived in a country which, at a certain time period, had such a deterioration in the quality of law enforcement (corruption, lack of funds, high crime rates etc), that the local mob effectively did run the show. And while it was messy, they did actually establish some rule of law - except it was, of course, their law. But it was something businesses were willing to go along with, because some law is usually better than none; and if paying, say, 10% on a regular basis means you can generally do business normally otherwise (and your contracts are enforced if needed etc), that's not the worst place to be in. If you think about it, governments essentially evolved out of such bands of armed people providing "protection" to the populace (which really just means that no-one else is going to rob them). So when a government becomes so inefficient and/or corrupt that it cannot effectively provide protection anymore, well, the next challenger is going to take over - and, if successful, eventually become the new government. Somewhere down the line, people start asking questions like "why are we paying these guys", and you get all kind of fancy philosophical theories like social contract and natural rights, and the role and mechanics of government evolves accordingly... but it still has to be able to provide this one basic function: ensure that no-one else collects the money from its citizens, and no-one else can rough them up.

douche 10y ago

> legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades This is essentially the history of statebuilding, from Sargon of Akkad to today. There is not a great deal of distinction to be made between a Gothic warchief, a Norman knight, a Spanish conquistador, or a Mexican cartel head.

kingkawn 10y ago

That's how we got our current governments and economic model.